Check Package Vulnerabilities

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond this: it performs a live query, never estimates risk, reports zero when OSV has no advisories, and gracefully handles README fetch failures by returning null rather than failing entirely. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (overview, args, return format, error handling). Every sentence contributes meaningful context—no fluff or repetition. Despite its length, it remains scannable and each element earns its place, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, so the description fully explains the return JSON structure, including fields and types. It also covers error handling, edge cases (zero vulnerabilities, failed README fetch), and the live nature of the query. Given the tool's complexity (4 params, external API, conditional behavior), the description is comprehensive and leaves no major gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are fully described in the schema. The description's Args section largely repeats the schema (e.g., defaults, package name exactness) without adding new meaning or constraints. It adds little value beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool checks a specific package version against OSV.dev for vulnerabilities and goes beyond a CVE list by fetching the fixed version's README. It distinguishes itself from siblings like docs_get_package_info and docs_search_docs by focusing specifically on vulnerability checking and remediation guidance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit context on when to use the tool: for a live vulnerability check on a real package version. It also clearly notes limitations compared to dedicated vulnerability-intelligence tools (VulnCheck, Snyk) and explains that zero vulnerabilities is a valid result, not an error. This gives clear usage boundaries and alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.